Seems that there’s some excitement about a new paper A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable? to be published in Annals of Applied Statistics. Their reconstruction appears to be closest match to a hockey stick shape yet seen:

i-1d91f371ed0bb1448203df8697493ae7-mcshanewynerhockey.png

Also:

Using our model, we calculate that there is a 36% posterior probability that 1998 was the warmest year over the past thousand. If we consider rolling decades, 1997-2006 is the warmest on record; our model gives an 80% chance that it was the warmest in the past thousand years.

Discuss.

Update: Deep Climate on M&W is worth a read.

[Update 2: Eduardo Zorita.

Comments

  1. #1 Bernard J.
    August 23, 2010

    Oh, and one should not forget the influence that the use of fire, for cooking and for warmth and for smelting, had on human cultures during the early Holocene. This technology itself had a profound enabling effect on agricultural practices.

  2. #2 cohenite
    August 23, 2010

    Yes quite BJ, if your assumptions are correct: 0.16C over 5000 years; about 3.2*-05C per annum.

  3. #3 Lotharsson
    August 23, 2010

    > No, there is nothing that dictates that there MUST be something to the criticisms.

    Apparently from the same commenter who wrote:

    > There must be more there than nothing, otherwise, why all the concern?

    Double standards, much?

  4. #4 Wow
    August 23, 2010

    “I defend the criticisms because to not do so would be hypocritical.”

    In what way would that be hypocritical?

    Why would you accept and defend criticisms of the hockey stick yet refuse to accept criticisms of the criticism? Surely that is the hypocrisy.

    Or is any cockamamie story put forward by a miniscule set of nutjobs necessary to defend against the majority? Just because they are a minority?

    If so, that is merely dogma, not principle speaking.

  5. #5 Bernard J.
    August 23, 2010

    Cohenite.

    [Non sequitur]

    Discuss.

  6. #6 Bernard J.
    August 23, 2010
  7. #7 cohenite
    August 23, 2010

    Bernard: “The other thing about the historical CO2 level is that is shows that our biosphere is adapted to a range of 180 to 300 ppm – so Tim Curtin’s hysteria, and that of his sympathisers, that the biosphere cannot function without elevating atmospheric CO2 is entirely misplaced”

    I don’t think that is what Tim Curtin says but why don’t you ask him yourself? In addition your slant on adaptive parameters is rather strange; generally organisms adapt against each other not the environment; survival of the fittest and all that, but I see you are in an eristic state of mind so we’ll leave it at that.

  8. #8 Bernard J.
    August 23, 2010

    [Cohenite](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and.php#comment-2745854).

    In addition your slant on adaptive parameters is rather strange; generally organisms adapt against each other not the environment…

    Oh, puh-lease!

    Do you actually have any idea at all about the relative input of biotic and abiotic factors in driving the evolution of species?!

    Yours is a completely fatuous statement.

    Go back to divorce lawyering. At least there you have training and experience.

    Of course, if you wish to dispute my claim that your statement is fatuous, you need only to write the monograph that proves me wrong.

    Have at it.

  9. #9 Jeff Harvey
    August 23, 2010

    *generally organisms adapt against each other not the environment; survival of the fittest and all that*

    This is utter nonsense. Where oh where cohenite to you dredge up such gibberish? Organisms need to adapt to both the biotic and abiotic environment. Both factors determine the limits of a species distribution both locally and globally. If abiotic environmental conditions were not so important, why would there be such enormous biodiversity at lower latitudes whereas ecosystems towards the poles are much more species-poor? Moreover, species do not necessarily adapt ‘against’ each other; many co-evolved mutualisms are also vitally important.

    Most vertebrates exhibit thermoneutral zones outside of which they must increase their metabolic rates to survive. Invert activity patterns are based on local abiotic conditions and on behavioral phenotypic plasticity to changes in these. Certainly, intra- and interspecific competition, as well as trophic interactions, play a critical role in determining the success of species and local populations. But abiotic conditions are also critical: temperature, moisture, etc.

    Moreover, cohers, do you know what the term fitness means? Your vague reference to it suggests not. Care to define it for me off the top of your head?

    The bottom line is that cohers is well out of his depth on this topic. I stayed out of this discussion until now but that last comment of his was so utterly DUMB that I had to jump in.

  10. #10 Wagathon
    August 23, 2010

    “Based on the arguments presented here, a null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed: It is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change to the Earth’s climate, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.”

    Summary: The energy transfer processes that occur at the Earth’s surface are examined from first principles. The effect of small changes in the solar constant caused by variations in the sunspot cycles and small increases in downward long wave infrared flux due to a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration on surface temperature are considered in detail. The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth’s climate. The effects on surface temperature of small increases in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change. The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing in climate models are shown to be invalid. A null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed that it is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.

    R Clark. A null hypothesis for CO2. Energy & Environment. 21:4, Aug. 2010, 171-200

    —–

    And for any victims of Hot World Syndrome who want to break through to fearmongering and venture outside Plato’s prison cave, here’s a quick summary of the summary: the AGW hypothesis cannot be proven; everything else is dogma.

  11. #11 t_p_hamilton
    August 23, 2010

    Null hypothesis: Wagathon can’t tell credible sources for scientific papers from bad.

    Data: Wagathon quotes paper from Energy and Environment

    Hypothesis confirmed!

  12. #12 Wow
    August 23, 2010

    That null hypothesis summary is completely wrong.

    “The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth’s climate.”

    Absolutely incorrect.

    “The effects on surface temperature of small increases in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change.”

    The flux averages about 324W. The change from 100ppm increase is easily visible and the exit fluxes are measured and 9W/m^2 difference is measured, easily within the error estimates of the sensors.

    “The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing in climate models are shown to be invalid.”

    Only by circular reasoning.

    I.e. not at all.

    The solar changes cannot warm a nighttime temperature.

    Nighttime temperatures are increasing.

    The hypothesis of Solar changes being effective to explain the climate changes is therefore shown false.

  13. #13 Bernard J.
    August 23, 2010

    Wagathon [says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and.php#comment-2746126):

    …the AGW hypothesis cannot be proven; everything else is dogma.

    Does this [remind anyone of something](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8IBnfkcrsM&feature=related)?

  14. #14 Bernard J.
    August 23, 2010

    Just quietly, cohenite, [Jeff Harvey has given you some very good starting material](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and.php#comment-2745922) with which to learn and to understand why [your comment about adaptation](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and.php#comment-2745854) is completely off the mark.

    Perhaps you should run everything that you type past your buddy [David Stockwell](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/australian_politicians_overest.php#comment-2744151) for scientific soundness before you engage you mouth in public. I’m sure that even he would wince at your latest…

    You might also revisit your [bizarre non sequitur](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and.php#comment-2745635) – changing the subject a la Tim Curtin will not make it go away.

  15. #15 Wagathon
    August 23, 2010

    Scientists have told so many lies, I would think all but science authoritarians would welcome the null hypothesis. Isn’t this the correct way put science back in the driver’s seat?

    Who is it who wishes instead to continue disemvoweling ‘rsn’ and continue to superstitiously bow to the mysticism of ‘The One’ known as CO2? Whose interests are being served by continuing to sacrifice Americanism on the altar of a self-defeating philosophy that ‘Earth is the center of the universe, redux.’ Galileo is weeping.

  16. #16 Paul H
    August 23, 2010

    Wagathon,

    Straw man: “‘The One’ known as CO2“. Whoever claimed that CO2 was the only climate forcing agent?

    Whose interests are being served by continuing to sacrifice Americanism on the altar of a self-defeating philosophy that ‘Earth is the center of the universe, redux.’

    Whoever said that free enterprise, freedom and the free market are inconsistent with effective policy on climate change?

    Wow has quickly demonstrated the flaw in the E&E paper. Why don’t you show some skepticism, curiosity and demonstrate that you have an ounce of interest in real science by accepting that R. Clark might not be the guru you suppose he is. To further pile it on:

    “*The effects on surface temperature of small increases in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change. *”

    Completely laughable. This is an ignorant statement since satellite measurements in the infra-red and ground based upward looking FTIR observations of GHGs are either directly or indirectly observing the change in the greenhouse effect due to the addition of GHGs. How do you explain this?

    Worden, 2008. Satellite measurements of the clear-sky greenhouse effect from tropospheric ozone, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo182.

    Without changes in the downward LWIR how would thermal IR observing instruments function?

    The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth’s climate.

    Then why hasn’t the stratosphere warmed, and why do the satellite observations of solar irradiance flatly disprove this (w/o assuming a v. large sensitivity)?

    This further goes to prove that E&E desperately needs to instigate some effective peer review. Interestingly, I can’t access the article since my institution doesn’t deem it to be a scientific journal.

  17. #17 Wagathon
    August 23, 2010

    *[Off topic. Wagathon, you don't seem to be able to stay on the topic of this thread. Please do not post to this thread again.]*

  18. #18 chek
    August 23, 2010

    So it seems to me that one thing Wagathon has shown is that Americanism = out-of-touch-with-reality-ism.

    Let’s hope not all Americans believe in Americanism.

  19. #19 Wagathon
    August 23, 2010

    Sorry … the lead to the comments said, “Using our model, we calculate that there is a 36% posterior probability that 1998 was the warmest year over the past thousand. If we consider rolling decades, 1997-2006 is the warmest on record; our model gives an 80% chance that it was the warmest in the past thousand years.

    “Discuss.”

    I thought that was a good idea to suggest that we ‘discuss’ why models fail, e.g., that they demonstrate no ‘hindcasting’ ability — which is what the McShane and Wyner paper is about, but apparently the ‘topic’ has changed and I will not ‘post to this thread again’ as you requested.

  20. #20 Wow
    August 23, 2010

    “Scientists have told so many lies”

    Indeed, there are many scientists working for vested interests in fossil fuels that have told many lies.

    Yet you still believe them.

    “I would think all but science authoritarians would welcome the null hypothesis.”

    They would also appreciate a correct investigation into it rather than a pack of lies.

    “Isn’t this the correct way put science back in the driver’s seat?”

    It is, which is why your parroting of the horrendous E&E paper here is so unwelcome. You’re trying to pull the steering wheel from the drivers hands. Just because you don’t like the road.

  21. #21 cohenite
    August 23, 2010

    Oh dear, I’ve ruffled some feathers; Jeff says:

    “Organisms need to adapt to both the biotic and abiotic environment. Both factors determine the limits of a species distribution both locally and globally.”

    I said: “generally organisms adapt against each other not the environment; survival of the fittest and all that”

    Fitness in biologic terms is a matter of differential reproduction, one species being able to reproduce quicker than a competing specie[s]. Of course abiotic parameters are important but let me ask you, can a species be more fit than another in a deteriorating environment? The point is from a comparison of reproductive rates between species, from the viewpoint of the loser[s] the environment is always a deteriorating one. Of course from the catastrophic view of AGW, all species will be disadvantaged equally and all will be less fit. Have I got that right?

  22. #22 Bill Walsh
    August 23, 2010

    Lotharsson @398,

    Well, you have me there. Fair enough. I’ll own it.

    How about this? It would seem that there MAY be something to the paper based on the reaction. And there MAY very well be something to the criticisms as well. It will take some time and some others to (in)validate the conclusions properly.

    Rattus @391,

    I don’t have issue with what you write. But again, the issue is jumping to conclusions rather than waiting for it to actually be published and, if possible, tested and replicated. As for whether they asked scientists, if I understand it correctly–and I have no doubt I will be corrected if I don’t–all these guys did was take the raw data available and compared it to useless data to see if they could verify the original result. Not sure where asking a climate scientist their opinion would have changed things as they were not creating new data. Now, I freely admit I am not a statistician, or a scientist so if there are important ways to interpret the data that they failed to do, I would guess that will be exposed soon enough. But that will take time. At least enough for the paper to actually get published in its final form with, what I read, will be added commentary from others to add clarity.

    Wow @399,

    You really want to try to show you are smart, don’t you? Inferiority complex or something? Whatever it is, it’s not working for you. What I said was I defend your right to criticize this paper, just like I defend the right of another to criticize those who are critical. To not do so would be hypocritical. What about that do you not understand? Or do you just grab at straws so you can squeeze in a few more condescending remarks? Do I understand you to say that this paper is a “cockamamie story” and that the writers are a “miniscule (sic) set of nutjobs” despite the fact that the paper was reviewed and will be published? Who the hell made you judge and jury anyway?

  23. #23 sod
    August 23, 2010

    Of course from the catastrophic view of AGW, all species will be disadvantaged equally and all will be less fit. Have I got that right?

    of course you have it wrong. the globe is WARMING. can you figure out for yourself, which species might benefit and which ones might have a bigger disadvantage? you have heard, that some species are specialists, while others are more generalists? can you figure out the problem?

    oh and while you are at it, here is a hint: the first animals that left water. can you figure out, that they were adopting to the environment?!?

    ps: cohenite, what you wrote was plain out stupid. just admit it and move on.

  24. #24 Bernard J.
    August 23, 2010
  25. #25 Lotharsson
    August 23, 2010

    > It would seem that there MAY be something to the paper based on the reaction. And there MAY very well be something to the criticisms as well.

    You MAY indeed have that opinion – and you seem to acknowledge that you (like most of us, myself included) don’t have the statistical chops to figure out how good (or otherwise) their results are. Which makes it particularly strange that you’re essentially trying to say that the critical reactions are somehow inappropriate.

    Especially as your basis for asserting the reactions seem inappropriate is the *rate* or *number* or *tone* of comments, rather than their substantiveness (or otherwise).

    And even more especially when others have pointed out to you that it would seem that there MAY be denialist propaganda value to the paper even if there is zero climate science value to the paper – which might provide a *much better* explanation for the early reaction than “there’s something of scientific impact to their claims”.

    > It will take some time and some others to (in)validate the conclusions properly.

    It may, but some of the early criticisms of many of the conclusions seem pretty potent already.

    Even so, I suspect you miss the forest for the trees. The hype surrounding the paper is not because of its conclusions; it’s because of how the conclusions are framed – and spun. You seem to me to be arguing that there should be no response to that, even though it’s pretty clear that much of the framing seems on its face unjustified.

    > …all these guys did was take the raw data available and compared it to useless data to see if they could verify the original result.

    If I have it right – and I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I don’t – that’s not even close.

    They took the raw data of which there are two key classes – instrumental records and proxies. They *made up* some new procedures that *no-one in climate science* appears to use for reconstructing temperature records from proxies. When you do a reconstruction from proxies, you certainly want to know how good it is – and a key class of methods for determining this is to compare against the instrumental record in various ways.

    So they tested the results of their newly created reconstruction procedures against the instrumental record, and also tested some “simple” interpolation/estimation methods against the same record – including some specially crafted noise sequences that may not be quite as purely random as some people would like to make out.

    On the basis of those comparisons it has been widely proclaimed that the *proxies* weren’t any better than some of the random sequences at matching the instrumental record – which has been framed and spun to imply that the **proxy data inherently**, rather than **the proxy data under their particular reconstruction method**, is no better than some of the specially crafted noise sequences at reconstructing temperature, and therefore that the whole field of paleoclimatology is inherently bunk. (There’s more, but that should be enough to chew on.)

    Do you see where the problem lies, and (if I’m approximately right) why your description of what they did is so far off the mark? And why early reaction to the spin might be entirely appropriate – and assertive?

  26. #26 P. Lewis
    August 23, 2010

    I offer nothing to the “debate”, other than to point out that the use of [sic] with “miniscule” is wholly inappropriate (unless there is some obscure grammatical point I’m missing).

    Both spelling forms are listed in the Shorter Oxford English and Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate dictionaries, from which the following is derived.

    The usual spelling (which I generally prefer, I hasten to add) is “minuscule”. This originates in the E18C and derives from the Latin minuscula. “Miniscule”, a variant spelling, probably dates from the M19C (based on usage of the prefix mini-).

  27. #27 Bill Walsh
    August 23, 2010

    P Lewis @421,

    To appease your, generally fair, comment, I hereby retract the (sic) though the word is but a variant and does come up as red in the spelling thingy included with this comment window. I too prefer and generally use the more known “minuscule.” I stand by the rest of my comments regarding Wow.

    Lotharsson @420,

    I think you misunderstand why how it is I even got involved in this discussion, or what I am for or against.

    First and foremost, it is not the critical reactions themselves that I have issue with. It’s the fact that the vast majority of them are voiced by people like you and I–no statistical chops–but are voiced in a way as to make those who have differing opinions out to be loons, heretics, denialists, idiots, fools, rubes, bozos or worse. You don’t put stock into it, fine. But since it is too soon to have substantive issues with it–it hasn’t been published–there seems to me to be no reason to act high and mighty and condescend those who ask reasonable questions. Not to say that some don’t deserve it which is clear regarding some on this thread. But not all do.

    In other words, yes, my issue is one of tone more than substance. You, for instance, seem to be rather reasonable. You point out an error with a bit of snark, but I deserved it in that case. Fine. Calling me an idiot with no other substance to the argument brings zero value.

    “It may, but some of the early criticisms of many of the conclusions seem pretty potent already.”

    I haven’t seen any that I would deem thorough enough to call “potent” just yet. I have read most I have seen linked. But they are brief, opinionated and not altogether thorough.

    “Even so, I suspect you miss the forest for the trees. The hype surrounding the paper is not because of its conclusions; it’s because of how the conclusions are framed – and spun. You seem to me to be arguing that there should be no response to that, even though it’s pretty clear that much of the framing seems on its face unjustified.”

    True. But just the same, many of the AGW arguments tend to be framed, and spun, in a similar manner. To give an example, you I am sure watched the “plant food” video. In my opinion, that was entirely spin with a lot of “might” and “could” and “has the chance to” type statements, not to mention a general “weather in this case is global warming” mantra. I understand the popint they want to make, but since there is nothing conclusive to point to AGW in these cases, I think the video borders on propaganda. Weather is weather, climate is climate. Heard it a hundred times if I have heard it once. Can’t have it both ways.

    I am not sure, other than how Watts has lauded/framed the paper for a week now, just where the framing is unjustified. Regardless of where these guys got the idea, or their opinions on the subject, it shouldn’t matter if the work stands up.

    As for defining the paper, you likely did a better job than I, and I would agree with your assessment as much as I understand what you state. For instance, to state that this paper invalidates paleoclimatology, even in the slightest, is laughable. That said, I would prefer to see less attacking, and more looking, because there is the chance that there are pertinent pieces to the study, even if it is flawed in places. An open discussion rather than a pissing match of insults would be preferable.

    Apologies for format. Haven’t figured out how to properly quote posts and set those apart.

  28. #28 MFS
    August 23, 2010

    Bill,

    Use the greater-than sign at the beginning of a line and any paragraph directly after it will be rendered as a blockquote.

    “>this is a quote” would be rendered as
    >this is a quote

    Hope this helps

  29. #29 Bill Walsh
    August 23, 2010

    MFS @423

    “>Use the greater-than sign at the beginning of a line and any paragraph directly after it will be rendered as a blockquote.”

    Thanks for the tip.

  30. #30 Bill Walsh
    August 23, 2010

    But it didn’t work. Did I do it wrong?

  31. #31 Rattus Norvegicus
    August 23, 2010

    You can also use the <blockquote>text</blockquote> tags to set off a multi paragraph quote. This is because of the CSS on this site, it doesn’t work everywhere, but it does on most sites.

    As for the criticisms I outline in my post:

    1) Is just based on what seems to be considered best practice in the field right now. Gavin recently brought this point up in a reply at RealClimate.

    2) Is just a matter of professional ethics as pointed out by John Mashey in an earlier comment in this thread. He also brings up the Berger presentation from the NCAR 2007 Climate and Statistics workshop, which is worth looking at. Consider Berger’s point on barriers to entry.

    3) The problems with their noise model is the only thing that requires statistical chops, but it doesn’t require much. If your noise model includes the forced trend, then it is no longer purely noise. There is no real reason to conclude that a composite of the proxies, which have different temporal resolutions which vary from type to type, will have the same characteristics, will have the same noise characteristics as the very high resolution temperature record. Including the forced trend in the noise is just wrong in this case.

    There is a reason that statisticians who collaborate with climate scientists have worked on these problems for a long time. The fact that the Li, Nychka and Ammann papers cited by M&W come up with very different results should be a clue.

  32. #32 Lotharsson
    August 24, 2010

    Slightly rushed comment, got to go somewhere.

    > …it is not the critical reactions themselves that I have issue with.

    I may be mistaken, but it sounded very much like it was.

    > But just the same, many of the AGW arguments tend to be framed, and spun, in a similar manner.

    The key distinction being that many of those very same arguments have significant scientific evidence backing them, and years and years of post-publication scrutiny.

    > …you I am sure watched the “plant food” video…

    Sorry, haven’t seen it. But I am quite comfortable arguing on scientific grounds that the claims that it responds to are clearly bogus.

    > …but since it is too soon to have substantive issues with it–it hasn’t been published…

    Not at all.

    It’s the “being spread far and wide” that makes it fair game for comment, whether or not it has been formally published. Otherwise you’re condoning gaming the publications system for propaganda purposes.

    > I would prefer to see less attacking, and more looking, because there is the chance that there are pertinent pieces to the study, even if it is flawed in places.

    Attacking and looking are both part of scientific progress – noting that this is not a scientific forum, so judging how much scientists are “looking” at this by how much evidence you see of “looking” on this forum or others like it is…questionable.

    > …but are voiced in a way as to make those who have differing opinions out to be loons, heretics, denialists, idiots, fools, rubes, bozos or worse…

    Welcome to the Internet. Debate about just about everything here has been … er, robust … for a number of decades now ;-)

  33. #33 Wow
    August 24, 2010

    “Inferiority complex or something? ”

    Yes Billie, you DO seem to have an inferiority complex.

    Why else would you decry criticism by tone trolling? After all, you haven’t shown the arguments I made are wrong.

    Again you have nothing to say of substance.

    Because you’re a denialist kidding on.

  34. #34 Wow
    August 24, 2010

    “What I said was I defend your right to criticize this paper,”

    Except when it does get criticised, you state this is PROOF the paper has some validity.

    Oddly enough, the reams of criticism (almost the entirety of which has been shown to be in error) hasn’t led you to believe that AGW is real. Despite so many orders of magnitude more reams being written in uncontrolled forums against it.

  35. #35 sunspot
    August 24, 2010

    ABSTRACT: Although considerable attention has been paid to the record of temperature change over the last few centuries, the range and rate of change of atmospheric circulation and hydrology remain elusive. Here, eight latitudinally well-distributed (pole–equator–pole), highly resolved (annual to decadal) climate proxy records are presented that demonstrate major changes in these variables over the last 2000 years. A comparison between atmospheric 14C and these changes in climate demonstrates a first-order relationship between a variable Sun and climate. The relationship is seen on a global scale.

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/i42

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/i44

  36. #36 Wow
    August 24, 2010

    “A comparison between atmospheric 14C and these changes in climate demonstrates a first-order relationship between a variable Sun and climate.”

    Except that the sun doesn’t shine at night.

    So why are nights warming quicker?

  37. #37 sunspot
    August 24, 2010

    maybe your mummy turns the heater on

  38. #38 Wow
    August 24, 2010

    Oooh, there’s clever.

  39. #39 Lotharsson
    August 24, 2010

    > Oooh, there’s clever. *And then there’s sunspot.*

    Fixed it for you.

  40. #40 TrueSceptic
    August 24, 2010

    Yet again we have a “sceptic” demonstrating inability to stay on topic. Do they have some problem with basic comprehension?

    Can someone suggest a reason for this behaviour, especially when the blog always has an Open Thread available?

  41. #41 Bill Walsh
    August 24, 2010

    Wow @428,

    Riiiight. Except that your “arguments” presented towards myself are nothing more than empty words on a page and random attempts to browbeat. I have addressed any worth addressing, and yet you still come with more nonsense. The term “tone trolling” is meaningless to me pal. It’s one of those ridiculous internet generalizations that make it easy for those like you to dismiss those you don’t agree with without having to actually think. Much like “denialist.” Shall we go back and compare the number of ad hom attacks from you as opposed to myself? I would say we are approaching 25 to 1. And I am being generous with your number and giving myself the one just in case I slipped.

    As for the criticisms, I don’t state anything about them being proof of validity, only that there would seem to be no need for such extensive critical review prior to release were there nothing but lies and hot air. Seems logical. As for AGW, IT IS REAL. We pollute. We cause environmental problems. We affect the planet. It is the level of it’s reality and, more importantly, the level of the future reality that I question.

    Interesting that I am willing to objectively take a look at all parts and generate an opinion, yet you seem to be able to do nothing but retort with the standard talking points, refusing to accept that there actually may be something else out there at play. But your mind is made up, and I don’t even wish to try to change it. But your message would be more tolerable without the baggage of your constant “I’m smarter than you so shut up” attitude.

  42. #42 Ian Forrester
    August 24, 2010

    Bill Walsh said:

    Interesting that I am willing to objectively take a look at all parts and generate an opinion, yet you seem to be able to do nothing but retort with the standard talking points, refusing to accept that there actually may be something else out there at play.

    Mmmm please tell me about what else is out there, in your “opinion” of course, that is causing the recent global warming.

    Since you only have “an opinion” and no scientific facts to back it up does your “opinion” include pixie dust, little green men from Mars with lasers, unknown forms of radiation emanating from outside our galaxy which we have no method to detect. Hey, I can go on for paragraph after paragraph coming up with nonsense like your “opinions” (oops you haven’t actually told us what your “opinion” is, that is why I am guessing).

    Why do you not study some science, it will result in changing you “opinions” to facts. Try it some time, it is very enlightening.

    By the way, I see no ad hominem comments in WOW’s posts only statements of fact.

  43. #43 MFS
    August 24, 2010

    Ian,

    It’s the whales, of course. Or lack thereof…

    We hunted down whale populations to a small fraction of their original stocks. Whales eat krill. Without whales krill stocks boomed. Krill eats phytoplankton. With booming krill phytoplankton is declining. Phytoplankton use sunlight to make biomass (photosynthesis). With less phytoplankton, more sunlight is turned to heat instead of biomass!

    The good news is that phytoplankton makes DMS, and DMS seeds clouds. Therefore we are in the verge of seeing (any moment now…) increasing albedo and global cooling. Possibly a new glaciation…

    /sarcasm

    Actually… this is good enough to start a bona fide conspiracy theory… I could make money out of this… ;)

  44. #44 Bill Walsh
    August 24, 2010

    Lotharsson @427,

    You, sir, I find to be a reasonable individual with genuinely worthwhile input, and if it matters, I don’t take offense to your few corrections of my posts–i.e. the double standard take.

    Now, with that said, I don’t have issue with criticism toward this paper, or any other–especially since this one was made most public by the “skeptic” side. Look at it critically all you want. But be reasonable with the discussion rather than combative. I have issue with declaring it crap and stating that it is but another in a long line of “denialist” tripe. Perhaps, but the point is it is too soon to say that.

    Your distinction is a fair one. But there is still the use of that material to create what I see as a false sense of fear for the future of, say, our children. When the science gets twisted by political posturing, the message tends to get lost and becomes less effective. People shun ideas due to political bias alone. This should not be a political issue. The facts get skewed far too easily.

    Spread “far and wide” does make it fodder for criticism–again this is fine. Just not knee-jerk dismissal based on predetermined beliefs. Same goes for knee-jerk acceptance based on opposing beliefs.

    Not sure I would agree that “attacking” is part of a healthy scientific process. Disagreement, skepticism, discussion and questioning of science are healthy. Attack implies anger and I am not sure I see the need. Very few scientists I work with–and I work with many–find themselves under “attack” based on their work. They do, however, find their findings questioned, which is fine and good. Perhaps it is merely semantics which divides us in this case.

    With regards to your thoughts on the “plant food” I assume you are stating that CO2 is not food per se which is to say more is not better in that regard. That was the point of the video. what I was referring to is the implication in that video that recent events in Pakistan and Russia are a direct result of rising CO2, or in other words, AGW. I would assert there is absolutely zero evidence that is the case and that such statement are hyperbole and exactly why people are turned off by many pro AGW arguments. Like I said, weather, not climate. Watch it and see if you agree.

    Lastly, debate is good. Even fun. I can just do without the petty name calling. Detracts from the discussion.

    Thanks for not participating in those tactics.

  45. #45 jakerman
    August 24, 2010

    Bill writes:

    >*I don’t state anything about them being proof of validity, only that there would seem to be no need for such extensive critical review prior to release were there nothing but lies and hot air.*

    Could you expand on this reasonsing? Debunking lies and hot air is a very important part of communications war that is waged. Its very important simply becaue of the amount of lies and hot air that are perpetuated.

    [See cohenite's, and Dave Springer's contribution in this thread as examples.]

    Secondly, does a paper need to be “*nothing but lies and hot air*” to deserve extensive critical review?

    [Eduardo Zorita](http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/08/mcshane-and-wyner-on-climate.html) and [RC](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/doing-it-yourselves/) show shortfalls in MW’s comparision that undermines the way the paper is is being used judge Mann’s methods.

    Attacking Mann has become propaganda game. To impune Mann’s methods by showing the shortfall of a non-Mann method seems to be less helpful to users of science and more helpful to users of anti-science.

  46. #46 Lotharsson
    August 24, 2010

    > I don’t state anything about them being proof of validity, only that there would seem to be no need for such extensive critical review prior to release were there nothing but lies and hot air. Seems logical.

    Seems entirely *illogical* to me – because as I’ve indicated voer and over again, the paper is being used **right now** as part of a propagandistic meme. Propaganda is effective **even if** it is “nothing but lies and hot air”, so countering it as soon as possible is vital.

    It’s as if a boxer is being confronted by someone threatening him with a pistol, and you’re arguing that the boxer must refrain from attempting to defend himself until the bell rings.

    This can only HELP the cause of those who want to spread false claims about science to influence politics and policy.

    > But there is still the use of that material to create what I see as a false sense of fear for the future of, say, our children.

    You’re changing subject and shifting the goalposts.

    There is significant weight of scientific evidence behind the proposition that there are potentially significant negative consequences of current greenhouse gas emissions.

    I have no doubt you can find material that pushes that case a little too far, but in any fair accounting the overwhelming weight of non-adherence to the scientific cases lies on the side of the denialists.

    > Just not knee-jerk dismissal based on predetermined beliefs.

    Fair point.

    The problem is you’re not equipped to judge the paper, and that means you’re not equipped to judge much of the critique either. Dismissing the critique on that (lack of) basis is *precisely the same behaviour that you’re objecting to*. I haven’t gone back to read your reasons for rejecting each piece of critique, so there may be fair comment amongst that too – but it seems to me the line you’re pushing here is inconsistent with your own behaviour.

    > Not sure I would agree that “attacking” is part of a healthy scientific process. … Attack implies anger…

    Not to me in terms of scientific debate, so I think this is merely a semantic difference as you suggested.

    > I would assert there is absolutely zero evidence that is the case and that such statement are hyperbole and exactly why people are turned off by many pro AGW arguments.

    Yes, I was talking about the presumption that it responds to the “CO2 is plant food, so more of it is an unmitigated good”. I haven’t seen it, so I’ll assume your quote is a fair statement of what it does at some ponit.

    Yes, it’s not possible with the state of our data and science to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any *specific* weather event would not have happened without AGW.

    But it is possible to make a pretty solid case that AGW will increase the frequency and intensity of some of these types of events.

    So if one says that these are precisely the kinds of events we would expect to see more of (and worse instances of) due to AGW, some (and IIRC there is quite a bit of research that shows this) will likely misinterpret it to mean “we can’t be sure about this particular event” and then make the leap to “therefore we shouldn’t really worry about AGW”. Scientists communicating to scientists make a nuanced case clearly communicating uncertainties – to those who know how to understand it. Most amateurs hear the nuance and interpret it as a “we don’t really know, therefore nothing to worry about yet” signal.

    Feel free to suggest how to communicate the issues so that far fewer people make that leap. When you communicate to a non-scientific audience, you have to change the way you communicate if you want the scientific case to be taken seriously.

  47. #47 Dean Morrison
    August 26, 2010

    The SPPI have ‘reprinted’ this yet to be published paper in its raw form.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/are_reconstructions_of_surface_temperatures_over_the_last_1000_years_reliable.html

    How does that work?

    Doesn’t the academic journal have some copyright issues with that?

    Presumably the authors gave the SPPI consent?

  48. #48 John Mashey
    August 26, 2010

    re: #442
    On Ferguson does that on occasion, when he runs out of Monckton material. You might rummage a bit and see.
    However, in this case, it’s sitting at ArXiv, I see no copyright notice. Maybe the final version will.

  49. #49 Lotharsson
    August 26, 2010

    > The SPPI have ‘reprinted’ this yet to be published paper in its raw form.

    Maybe now Bill Walsh will think it’s legit to critique it? ;-)

  50. #50 MFS
    August 26, 2010

    Ohhhhh, I love those pretty pictures they use for the cover, they’re so colorful!

    Who was it that said, if more ink is used to illustrate a point than is absolutely necessary to get the point across, the extra ink is there to hide something?

    Anyway, I find it hilarious also that they are presenting it as a ‘reprint’, when it’s a submitted draft and not even a reviewed pre-print version.

  51. #51 Lotharsson
    August 27, 2010

    > Anyway, I find it hilarious also that they are presenting it as a ‘reprint’, when it’s a submitted draft and not even a reviewed pre-print version.

    Says a lot about their ability to get **basic** facts right.

  52. #52 Wow
    August 27, 2010

    “However, in this case, it’s sitting at ArXiv, I see no copyright notice. Maybe the final version will.

    Posted by: John Mashey”

    Berne Convention doesn’t require the copyright notice, nor does it require registering copyright (though in the US you need to do so to get full statutory damages).

    There is no way to get something under the public domain specifically, which is a weakness of the copyright laws in just about every country in the world. Then again it is the people who benefit from the restrictions of copyright not the people being restricted who are getting their input into the copyright laws, so this imbalance is inevitable.

    Even this post is copyrighted.

  53. #53 John Mashey
    August 27, 2010

    re: #447 wow
    Yes, of course, but thanks for the reminder to clarify.
    What I meant was that:

    a) As it stands, the authors are McShane and Wyner, it’s just sitting in ArXiv, the Annals has no obvious rights.

    b) When the *final* version is done, buyable from the Annals of Applied Statistics, it may well have acquired a Copyright notice from them.

    Whereas the Annals might well take action against SPPI if it put up b), given everything else, I’d guess M&W may not mind at all to have a) there.

    And I would guess that from SPPI’s view, a) is at least as good as b), particularly since it doesn’t have any attached discussion that might be annoying…

  54. #54 Bill Walsh
    August 27, 2010

    Ian @437,

    In my opinion Ian, recent warming is a combination of natural and human factors. I think that’s been established and since I never disputed it, why would you assume I think otherwise? Because of your preconceived notion that I am the dreaded “denier?” Do you see other colors than black and white, or do those two suffice for you?

    My opinion is that there are FAR too many variables to accurately predict the feedbacks which will be necessary for CAGW. No amount of modeling can possibly account for all the factors. So, in my OPINION, most predictions are hyperbolic and used primarily for their political value in trying to create policy. Judging from earlier posts by our friend Wow (235),apparently there are no “true” believers of CAGW. If so, why do we hear so much of that line of thinking? And I am all for doing SOMETHING, just not strictly out of fear of the unknown. I’m for doing something because it’s the right thing to do whether we are doomed or not. And I think it’s safe to say that an immediate end–or even massive reduction–of the use of carbon-based fuels, something that has no chance of happening,will cost more than just a ton of money–there are sociological impacts as well–is just as much, if not considerably more, a fact as any climate prediction 30, 50, or 100 years into the future.

    Lotharsson @441,

    Just on question about this post. You mention you haven’t watched the “plant food” video, yet you have a handful of comments on that thread discussion. Why didn’t you watch?

    and @444,

    C’mon now. I have made it clear there is nothing wrong with critiquing this paper. Dismissing it as bunk so quickly is another matter regardless of their reasons for doing it, or the fact that it way well have some flaws. Simply stating it is worthless because you don’t like the motive or the conclusion holds no water with me.

    Now, I have to be honest, I am not, or at least wasn’t, familiar with SPPI. But, after taking a look, the fact that they too want to tout it is something it is not is equally stupid as Watts leaving on the top of his page for over a week.

    Let me ask you this sincerely. Do you think there is a group of people out there that could be assembled which could independently evaluate papers/claims of this type where most could agree on the decision? No bias either way. You asked me to suggest a better way to communicate. I think this is a necessary step because, right or wrong, the perception is there that no such group exists and that all are biased and jaded by the politics surrounding the issue. Climate detente so to speak.

  55. #55 Wow
    August 27, 2010

    “In my opinion Ian, recent warming is a combination of natural and human factors.”

    Gosh. So do the IPCC.

    “My opinion is that there are FAR too many variables to accurately predict the feedbacks”

    When you ask: “Because of your preconceived notion that I am the dreaded “denier?””, the answer as to whether you’re a denier is given in that sentence above.

    Your opinion, and a dollar, will buy a can of soda, if you’re lucky.

    “No amount of modeling can possibly account for all the factors.”

    But are all the factors needed to be accounted for?

    No.

    “And I think it’s safe to say that an immediate end…of the use of carbon-based fuels … will cost more than just a ton of money”

    Only in your opinion.

    Funny how you left that out this time.

    “there are sociological impacts as well–is just as much, if not considerably more, a fact as any climate prediction 30, 50, or 100 years into the future.”

    Again, you forgot the “in your opinion” bit.

    I make the point because that’s a load of horseshit you’re shoveling there. With both hands and a power digger…

    “C’mon now. I have made it clear there is nothing wrong with critiquing this paper. ”

    Indeed not, you’ve positively LOVED it and proposed this:

    “There must be more there than nothing, otherwise, why all the concern?”

    So if there’s any criticism, it MUST be proving the piece being criticized has something on it.

    Yet MBH98 is far, far FAR more criticized. Therefore it must be DEFINITIVE PROOF.

  56. #56 Wow
    August 27, 2010

    And I guess your concern, Billy, about AGW and mitigation shows that there’s something to all this man-made climate change after all…

  57. #57 Ian Forrester
    August 27, 2010

    Bill Walsh asked:

    Do you think there is a group of people out there that could be assembled which could independently evaluate papers/claims of this type where most could agree on the decision?

    Yes there is, they are called scientists and they have knowledge and expertise in, guess what, science.

    You continue to show that you are a denier, in fact you even deny that you are a denier, how fitting.

    As WOW said your opinion is worthless unless you can support it with hard facts and honest comment. Otherwise you are just a run of the mill dishonest denier.

    You have not quoted one article which can be construed as science since you started posting, I think that tells us everything we need to know.

  58. #58 Richard Simons
    August 27, 2010

    Bill, When you refer to CAGW, in which the ‘C’ presumably stands for ‘catastrophic’, exactly what do you mean? How damaging does it have to be to be called catastrophic? Would you call it catastrophic if it resulted in a million people dying of starvation in the next century? How about if a third of the population died? Ten percent of all species becoming extinct or 90%? Perhaps you don’t consider it would be catastrophic until all humans died off, or perhaps until all life was killed. Could you give some examples of possible effects that you would consider to be catastrophic?

    As far as I can tell, CAGW is a term only used by denialists in retreat from ‘Glogal warming is a hoax’ to ‘Global warming won’t be that bad’. If you want to continue using the expression, you should let us know what you mean by it.

  59. #59 Lotharsson
    August 28, 2010

    > Why didn’t you watch?

    I haven’t prioritised spending the time to learn things I almost certainly already know, presumably about arguments I already know are bogus.

    But the meme – that “CO2 is plant food, therefore more must be better” – is one that I’ve addressed on other threads, so following this post is a natural continuation of that.

    > I have made it clear there is nothing wrong with critiquing this paper.

    **Strawman**.

    I wasn’t responding to a claim that one **should not** critique this paper. Here’s the quote you were responding to, with added emphasis:

    > Maybe **now** Bill Walsh will think it’s legit to critique it? ;-)

    I was pointing out that you have repeatedly claimed that critique should **wait** until publication (and some suitable but probably not short period of post-publication contemplation). Do you see the difference, and how it makes your response moot? (And it’s not like I haven’t made this point over and over again…)

    > Dismissing it as bunk so quickly is another matter regardless of their reasons for doing it…

    Dismissing it as bunk **for the purposes to which it is being put by propagandists** seems eminently justified, because it seems clear that the propagandistic claims are not well supported by the paper.

    People aren’t dismissing it as completely useless **to science overall**. It’s always useful to try novel methods and see how they perform (although it seems that even on that criteria they didn’t do a very good job). But as it stands, their work appears to have precisely zero impact on paleoclimatology, because they (a) haven’t addressed methods used in that discipline, (b) haven’t shown that their method is better than others, and (c) haven’t shown that their comparative results generalise to all methods used.

    If you can’t distinguish between the two reasons then you’ll end up drawing some unjustified conclusions…

    > Simply stating it is worthless because you don’t like the motive or the conclusion holds no water with me.

    I totally agree, but again (at least as far as it applies to me, and I suspect to many commenters) this is a **strawman**.

    I fear you are unable to see the distinction between “because someone doesn’t like the motive or conclusion” and “because the conclusion does not hold up to scrutiny”. Stating that a claim that it is worthless (actually made because of the latter reason) is somehow invalid because of the former (inapplicable) reason is a fallacy. As is dismissing claims made for the latter reason *because* other claims made for the former reason exist.

    > I am all for doing SOMETHING, just not strictly out of fear of the unknown.

    This is another strawman. The motivation to do something is out of a fear of the “known + likely uncertainties”. There is no “strictly out of fear of the unknown” at work here.

    > Do you think there is a group of people out there that could be assembled which could independently evaluate papers/claims of this type where most could agree on the decision?

    The closest we have is the IPCC.

    Do you think that were such a group as you suggest to exist, and it did its job without bias, that there would be another group who would use all sorts of means to cast doubt on those results and seek to substitute their own, up to and including arguing that the group without bias was actually biased or corrupt? I don’t know – perhaps they would aim to create:

    > …the perception is there that no such group exists and that all are biased and jaded by the politics surrounding the issue.

    Further question: if these two groups were at odds over the results, how would you robustly tell them apart, and what strategies would you use to remove the false “information” from the public sphere (or at least from unduly influencing policy)?

  60. #60 Lotharsson
    August 28, 2010

    > …”known + likely uncertainties”…

    …could be better expressed “what we know + the likely uncertainties”.

    I was trying to make the distinction between two views of knowledge. The first is black and white, i.e. that on any issue there’s only two states of knowledge – “utterly certain” and “haven’t a clue”, although often the term “uncertain” will be used instead of the latter. This view of knowledge is often used to argue that we should delay action until we (suddenly!) transition from “haven’t a clue” to “utterly certain”.

    Using “uncertain” has propaganda value in this context, because scientists are almost always “uncertain” (in the sense of having *some* level of uncertainty) and when speaking about their work to one another clearly communicate that fact – ironically in order to be more accurate and to avoid others attributing unjustified levels of certainty to their work. The conflation of the scientific use of “uncertain” with “haven’t a clue” when communicating with scientifically unsophisticated audiences lets the conflaters deceive those audiences about what scientists are saying and how much scientists actually know.

    The second view is that on any issue the state of knowledge can lie *anywhere* between “haven’t a clue” and “utterly certain” – including “we know quite a bit but also have some level of uncertainty”. Most policy has to be formed under some level of uncertainty of knowledge, so this is in a sense a completely normal state of affairs.

  61. #61 Bill Walsh
    August 30, 2010

    Wow @450,

    Brother, being called a “denier” bores me to the extreme. And your liberal use of the term tells me plenty about you.

    That said, a few points to respond.

    My comment regarding variables defines me as a denier? Sorry, but that is true. There ARE TOO MANY VARIABLES to accurately predict the future. That friend is a FACT. If you do not like it, sorry. Simple logic dictates that you can have an educated guess, but not KNOW jack shit about the future. End of discussion. So, there is no denial. If I am wrong, I would love to hear your prediction of, say, next years hurricane season. How many? How strong? Of course it’s a ridiculous question, but you expect me to think you can accurately predict the next 100 years?

    My biggest problem with all of this is the sense of egocentric crap that spills through some of these posts. My concern, unlike yours, has nothing to do with what I believe about the future. I do what I can to live the best I can because it is the right thing to do, and for no other reason. Resources are finite last time I checked, so there is no other motivation needed other than the FACT that someday we will run out. The scare tactics of the political aspect of AGW are not only questionable, they are counterproductive to the entire cause because, when you tell someone we will see more and more hurricanes for instance, and then 5 years goes by with below average hurricane activity, people tend to think they have been mislead. And most people don’t like that any more than they like having some high-horse riding scientist tell them they are stupid for basing their opinion on real events as opposed to predictions. You may think it’s crazy, but it is the situation where we find ourselves, like it or not. Tell the world we are warming out of control, show them that CO2 has been rising steadily, but temps have not followed, and guess what, the average layman will take that to mean nobody has a clue what is happening. There are no shortage of skeptics. Do you really expect people to believe they are ALL misinformed idiots? You probably do.

    Ian @452,

    Yes, scientists. See they get to do the work, but not to then also judge it. My question was in that vein. Once again, the perception is there is no group free of conflict that currently exists–the IPCC included. Not just my opinion clearly. But instead of doing some damage control to right the ship, the game plan is to stay the course and disregard any perceived problems. Nothing to see, right?

    Then, not just one, but four “deniers” and a deny in your next weak attempt to berate me. And then a strawman claiming my posts are worthless because I haven’t quoted any articles on science. Yet I am not trying to prove the science one way or the other, so why would I do that? I have not denied a single thing, yet the best you can do is to call me, and many others, names. I am just trying to understand the hostility.

    To that end, here’s a YouTube video that has a “science” twist to it. I suggest you watch because there is more than a little truth to what is said. And maybe you will find you actually have a sense of humor since you, and many others, seem to be lacking this very important human characteristic…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

    And Lotharsson @454,

    So you didn’t watch because you already know what was going to be said? Then you comment on what you didn’t watch? Interesting approach.

    First “strawman.” I don’t know what the hell you are talking about here. Why would the mention of the paper on that site make any difference in my opinion that folks on both sides should wait until a paper is actually published to pass judgment. Nobody knows what the final draft will look like, so what is the point?

    As for claims, it seems to me that NONE of the claims I have read, pro or con, are not well supported which is kind of the whole point.

    Second “strawman.” No, I very clearly see the difference. What you fail to see apparently is that the latter reason has no legs yet, so all we are left with is the former, that opinions are formed, both pro and con, on the basis of it either supporting or conflicting with one’s beliefs. Not because anyone has actually spent the time to confirm the results because they HAVEN’T BEEN PUBLISHED YET.

    Third “strawman.” What the hell is the definition of a “likely uncertainty?” If it’s likely, it shouldn’t be all that uncertain. Anyway, my point is that fear in general is a shitty motivator for the long term and it is proving itself a failure in this debate.

    The IPCC is not getting it done, sorry. But the rest of what you say I agree with, and therein lies the problem. I don’t have the answers to your questions, but they are fair.

    I am now done posting to this thread, but if you wish to have your last words, do feel free. I will undoubtedly read them.

    Enjoy the YouTube vid if you actually watch. He was an insightful man.

  62. #62 Lotharsson
    August 30, 2010

    > There ARE TOO MANY VARIABLES to accurately predict the future.

    It depends what you mean by “accurately predict the future”.

    If you want to predict weather patterns more than a couple of weeks out – then yes, it can’t be done. If you want to predict equilibrium climate changes which are largely constrained by relatively well-known physics…you can do quite well. The fact that you appear to argue that the latter is not possible suggests you don’t know enough to make the claims you’re making – or you are (the word fits) denying it.

    And it also hinges on how “accurate” you insist it be. Some denialists use this “accuracy” concern (or equivalently “uncertainty”) to argue we do nothing until the accuracy is very very high. This is folly (I don’t merrily keep driving until I’m very certain I’m going to hit the car in front of me before I brake).

    > Tell the world we are warming out of control,…

    Strawman, frequently used by denialists (e.g. the “any positive feedback means runaway warming” fallacy), but not claimed by climate scientists.

    > … show them that CO2 has been rising steadily, but temps have not followed…

    Fallacy, frequently claimed by denialists, often by looking at one or more of (a) regional weather, (b) global weather, (c) trends over timescales too short to see climate signal amongst weather noise.

    And you keep saying you’re not a denialist? You’re doing a really good impression of one.

    > See they get to do the work, but not to then also judge it.

    Ah, so someone **less qualified** gets to judge it? That’s good to know. I guess we can outsource marking exams at university from the (comparatively) better-paid lecturers to the much cheaper janitors.

    > So you didn’t watch because you already know what was going to be said? Then you comment on what you didn’t watch? Interesting approach.

    I think you’ll find that you are mistaken – I’m *not* commenting on the *content* of what I did not watch.

    > First “strawman.” I don’t know what the hell you are talking about here.

    I’m talking about you apparently misinterpreting a comment I made – by responding as if I’d written something else.

    > Why would the mention of the paper on that site make any difference in my opinion that folks on both sides should wait until a paper is actually published to pass judgment.

    To illustrate my point – that your insistence on waiting until it’s published is bogus? To probe at what counts as “publication” in your view, and why it makes (or may make) a difference in legitimacy to claims? To poke fun at the idea that publication makes a difference to the accuracy of claims?

    > Second “strawman.” No, I very clearly see the difference.

    You give a very good impression of not seeing it. I guess it’s because you believe this to be accurate:

    > …all we are left with is … that opinions are formed, both pro and con, on the basis of it either supporting or conflicting with one’s beliefs.

    I’d be highly interested in how you “know” this, especially given that some of the opinions appear to be coming from those that don’t think climate change is a big problem, and that you probably don’t have psychic powers.

    > Not because anyone has actually spent the time to confirm the results because they HAVEN’T BEEN PUBLISHED YET.

    Pull the other one!

    The results that have been propagated around the Internet (and “republished”) by the SPPI, cannot be confirmed **because they haven’t appeared in print**? The claims that they find the proxy data is not much use – despite NOT testing the methods used by climate scientists – will somehow gain legitimacy that they do not currently have **by virtue of appearing in print**? What magical properties does print confer on claims that other forms of communication does not?

    You can rightly claim that one cannot critique **the final paper** until the paper is … actually final. But arguing that one cannot critique widely publicised **claims themselves** merely **because** they are not yet found in a final paper is really head-in-the-sand silly – or rank denialism.

    > What the hell is the definition of a “likely uncertainty?”

    In most scientific domains and investigations we can put reasonable bounds on uncertainty intervals. That doesn’t mean events can’t occur outside of those bounds, but such occurrences are unlikely.

    > Anyway, my point is that fear in general is a shitty motivator for the long term and it is proving itself a failure in this debate.

    Weird. Fear of significantly detrimental outcomes that are within reasonable uncertainty bounds is a “shitty motivator”? Or are you arguing that whatever fears are expressed in this context are unjustified?

    > The IPCC is not getting it done, sorry.

    Getting what done? Trying to distill a defensible, relatively conservative summary of the science that can be used to drive policy? I’d argue it appears to be doing that quite well. Or were you referring to producing a summary that “most can agree with”? If the latter, why do you think that is, and do you think the answer has anything to do with those who foment disagreement for their own reasons *regardless* of the accuracy and defensibility of the summary? In other words, are you fallaciously claiming that “mass agreement” is what determines scientific legitimacy?

    Oh, I see you’re done posting here. Never mind – I have a pretty good idea what most of your answers will be anyway.

  63. #63 jakerman
    August 31, 2010

    Bill writes:

    >*I do what I can to live the best I can because it is the right thing to do, and for no other reason. Resources are finite last time I checked, so there is no other motivation needed other than the FACT that someday we will run out.*

    Bill this comment shows a lack of appreciation of the [tragedy of the commons](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons).

    Take for example fish stocks. As stocks are depleted, price singal sends a pervese signal to fish harder.

    If it were simply enough to recognise that resources are finite (and depleating), if this were the only motivation needed, then we would already be on a trajectory to reduce ecological footprint back towards the Earth’s carrying capacity. We are failing here, currently we are consuming the Earths capital at [2.6 times its rate of replenishment](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/) and a dominant incentive for further acceleration of consumption.

    Clearly we need more than awareness, we need an economic signal to align economic feedbacks (our dominant short term force) with environental feedbacks. (And we need feedbacks that provide a signal early enough to overcome the lag effect of our actions).

    >*The scare tactics of the political aspect of AGW are not only questionable, they are counterproductive to the entire cause because, when you tell someone we will see more and more hurricanes for instance, and then 5 years goes by with below average hurricane activity, people tend to think they have been mislead.*

    Scientist have duty to convey what the combinatin of evidence and theory tells them. Further more 5 years is not an appropriate time to judge hurricane activity. Just like so called “skeptics” were [none to skeptical in their premature pronoucements](http://www.skepticalscience.com/3-levels-of-cherry-picking-in-a-single-argument.html) that warming had stopped in 1998.

    >*And most people don’t like that any more than they like having some high-horse riding scientist tell them they are stupid for basing their opinion on real events as opposed to predictions.*

    You are being quite selective in your use of “real events”. You seem to be mistakenly infering that the evidence informing scientist did not come from observations of real events.

    >*You may think it’s crazy, but it is the situation where we find ourselves, like it or not. Tell the world we are warming out of control,*

    An unfortunate Strawman there Bill. Unfortunate given that you position yourself as railing against exageration, yet the IPCC and most scientist do not claim we are “warming out of control”. They claim something like keeping warming below 2 degress has a 50% chance of avoiding dangerous feedbacks (though the rate of loss of Arctic ices since 2005 indicates this may be optimistic). We might be warming out of control, but you have not accurately represented the claims of the IPCC.

    >*show them that CO2 has been rising steadily, but temps have not followed[...]*

    Well that’s just wrong Bill. To make such a bogus statement as temp has not followed CO2 requires erroneous use of short term data or ignoring other variables such as aerosols.

  64. #64 Bill Walsh
    August 31, 2010

    Lotharsson,

    So sorry, just had to add one last thing. Do go over to RC and go to the link for the IAC review of the IPCC. Read it. Then come back and tell me why they seem to agree with much of what I have been saying. Are they denialists as well? I think section 3 addresses some of what we have been discussing, especially much of your last post discussing that oh so descriptive “likely uncertainty.”

    I particularly like, beginning on page 33…

    “Another issue is whether it is appropriate to use quantitative subjective probabilities when statements are qualitative in nature or imprecisely stated. Many of the 71 conclusions in the
    “Current Knowledge about Future Impacts” section of the Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers are imprecise statements made without reference to the time period under
    consideration or to a climate scenario under which the conclusions would be true. Consider, for
    example, the statement:

    –In Central and Eastern Europe, summer precipitation is projected to decrease, causing higher water
    stress. Health risks due to heatwaves are projected to increase. Forest productivity is expected to
    decline and the frequency of peatland fires to increase. (High confidence; IPCC, 2007b, p. 14)–

    There is no indication about when these events are expected to occur or under what conditions. What changes in climate would give rise to these results? What is assumed about adaptation? It
    could be argued that, given the imprecision of the statement, it has an 80 percent chance of being true under *some* set of circumstances.

    In the Committee’s view, assigning probabilities to imprecise statements is not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty. If the confidence scale is used in this way, conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of
    “very high confidence” will have little substantive value.11 More importantly, the use of probabilities to characterize uncertainty is most appropriate when applied to empirical quantities (Morgan et al., 2009). The following statement may be true but should not be assigned a
    probability of occurrence”

    As to the rest of your post, we disagree. And I think you are not understanding many of my points and are arguing semantics. You also seem to miss the part where I mention that both sides of this debate are unrealistically critiquing the paper for their purposes, not just one. And where I say I don’t agree with either side making unsubstantiated claims about the content until it’s published. But no matter.

    Much of what else you choose to discuss is exactly what this committee is stating that “assigning probabilities to imprecise statements is not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty.”

    Will I now hear that this review is somehow unfair or distorted? Because from what I have read do far, it jibes with my opinion that there is some serious work for the IPCC and the scientific community to do to re-establish their credibility with the general public. I will just wait for everyone to tell me this committee isn’t qualified to make judgments on climate. Or something like that.

    But then you feel they “are doing quite well.” Clearly not everyone agrees.

  65. #65 Bill Walsh
    August 31, 2010

    And yes, I am aware this report is “Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Revision” but this is apples and oranges to a complicated statistical peer-reviewed paper.

    Not to mention they posted it on their own site…

    http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html

    Gives me the impression they are pretty comfortable with what they wrote. To be fair, it is far from entirely negative, but it sure as hell doesn’t read as a ringing endorsement.

  66. #66 Wow
    August 31, 2010

    “Gives me the impression they are pretty comfortable with what they wrote.”

    And Seitz was pretty comfortable with what he wrote about tobacco and second hand smoke.

    The tobacco industry were comfortable with it even though they KNEW (from memos released in the court investigation) at the time that their story was bunkum.

    Heck, Kim Jong Il is pretty comfortable with his statements that he shoots an 18-hole in 38 under and bowled over 300 on his first ever game.

    “being comfortable” is no indication of veracity.

    Just look at Monckton wrt HoL and G&T wrt the second law of thermodynamics.

  67. #67 Wow
    August 31, 2010

    “Brother, being called a “denier” bores me to the extreme. And your liberal use of the term tells me plenty about you.”

    Yup, it tells you that we’ve seen through your disguse and that pisses you off, don’t it?

    You liberal abuse of logic and reason and your steadfast refusal to listen and accept any grounded counterpoint display denialism. Your on-again/off-again relationship with basis for argumentation being printed only is denialism (if the paper cannot be criticised because it’s not in print, then these criticisms cannot be criticised by you because they too are not in print). But you chop and change your basis for acceptance based not on reasoning but on desired outcome.

    And your desired outcome is to deny any problem with AGW.

    You’re quacking, waddling and swimming but fluff up your mallard-coloured feathers when accused of being a duck.

    Sorry ducky, you’re a denialist.

  68. #68 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2010

    > I think you are not understanding many of my points and are arguing semantics.

    I doubt the former although I may be wrong about that, and agree the latter – semantics are very much necessary for understanding and communication.

    > I am aware this report is “Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Revision” but this is apples and oranges to a complicated statistical peer-reviewed paper.

    Unbelievable. Clearly there’s no point further pounding home the point that publication does not magically change the truth value of *any* claim – regardless of whether it’s an assessment of a report or a “complicated statistical paper”.

    So what we have here appears to be you touting a report as accurate and true, and which agrees with your (pre-existing) opinions? Would a Bill Walsh looking on at you making that claim exclaim that “your opinion of the report must have been formed *because* it agrees with your existing opinions”?

    You *have* had time to thoroughly check that the claims made by the report are representative of reality, I take it, before you tout it as good and accurate? And – given you quoted the IAC quoting from the Summary For Policymakers – have you determined whether the IAC is merely complaining that the **summary** does not contain sufficient evidence for the uncertainty characterisations attached to various statements or additional precision in the statement itself, or whether the detailed report as referenced for each such statement is also lacking in that evidence and precision?

    Regarding the quote:
    > In Central and Eastern Europe, summer precipitation is projected to decrease, causing higher water stress. … (High confidence; IPCC, 2007b, p. 14)–
    the IAC complains:
    > There is no indication about when these events are expected to occur or under what conditions.

    And yet, the WG2 Summary For Policymakers section that quote is contained in starts out [my emphasis]:

    > The following is a selection of the key findings regarding projected impacts, as well as some findings on vulnerability and adaptation, in each system, sector and region **for the range of (unmitigated) climate changes projected by the IPCC over this century**(8) judged to be relevant for people and the environment.9 The impacts frequently reflect projected changes in precipitation and other climate variables in addition to temperature, sea level
    and concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The magnitude and timing of impacts will vary with the amount and timing of climate change and, in some cases, the capacity to adapt. These issues are discussed further in later sections of the Summary.

    Now it’s quite likely that the IPCC could do a better job, but it sounds to me rather like the IAC **didn’t look very hard** for a description of the time period and circumstances and adaptation assumptions applying to the quote! Never mind that the offending quote itself references Ch 12 section 4 (a reference that the IAC excised from its quote – hmmmmmm).

    > Much of what else you choose to discuss is exactly what this committee is stating that “assigning probabilities to imprecise statements is not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty.”

    I disagree. The fact that there may be imprecise statements whose uncertainty characterisations should be improved in no way invalidates ALL OTHER (more precise) statements with uncertainty characterisations attached.

    > But then you feel they “are doing quite well.” Clearly not everyone agrees.

    Well, the IAC report that you quoted certainly does, even as they seek to improve it further:

    > The Committee concludes that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall and has served society well. The commitment of many thousands of the world’s leading scientists and other experts to the assessment process and to the communication of the nature of our understanding of the changing climate, its impacts, and possible adaptation and mitigation strategies is a considerable achievement in its own right. Similarly, the sustained commitment of governments to the process and their buy-in to the results is a mark of a successful assessment.

    And on communicating uncertainty, whilst providing various recommendations for improvement they ALSO say:

    > The IPCC uncertainty guidance provides a good starting point for characterizing uncertainty in the assessment reports.

    They seem to be talking about communicating uncertainty to relatively sophisticated readers – not the general public which is another problem entirely. Despite your:
    >… opinion that there is some serious work for the IPCC and the scientific community to do to re-establish their credibility with the general public.
    …this report will NOT address *that* credibility issue, because research shows clearly that the kind of uncertainty communications that scientists do – and that the IAC wants more of – lead the general public (often aided by spin doctors) to the false conclusion that the scientists “just don’t know anything” about the issue, rather than “know something, with a given level of uncertainty”.

  69. #69 Ian Forrester
    August 31, 2010

    Bill Walsh said:

    To that end, here’s a YouTube video that has a “science” twist to it. I suggest you watch because there is more than a little truth to what is said. And maybe you will find you actually have a sense of humor since you, and many others, seem to be lacking this very important human characteristic..

    Well now we know why Bill Walsh is so anti-science and so retarded. He doesn’t believe in evolution because it left him in the gutter back a few hundred thousand years.

    Bill, most of us have evolved beyond the mindless nonsense from the likes of George Carlin, too bad you haven’t moved forward. However, repeating your early eduction should move you forward a few years.

    Another piece of nonsense from BW:

    Because from what I have read do far, it jibes with my opinion that there is some serious work for the IPCC and the scientific community to do to re-establish their credibility.

    Too bad you only read biased and uninformed sources. But we knew that already from previous nonsense you have posted.

  70. #70 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2010

    Grrrr, my last comment should have looked like this towards the end:

    Despite your:

    > … opinion that there is some serious work for the IPCC and the scientific community to do to re-establish their credibility with the general public.

    …this report will NOT address that credibility issue, because research shows clearly that the kind of uncertainty communications that scientists do – and that the IAC wants more of – lead the general public (often aided by spin doctors) to the false conclusion that the scientists “just don’t know anything” about the issue, rather than “know something, with a given level of uncertainty”.

  71. #71 Bill Walsh
    September 1, 2010

    Wow @462,

    Nothing you say “pisses me off.” I would have to actually have respect for your opinion for that to be the case. Given your absolute and unwavering arrogance–here and, from what I can tell, on every thread–that is not likely to change. Quite to the contrary, you seem to be the one with anger issues. And since I have yet to deny a single thing in this thread, your conclusion is an epic fail.

    Loth @463,

    So the report is worthless and the IAC fails to get it? I figured there would be some reason why their conclusions–that, although the IPCC has “served society well” changes need to be made to better make it a reliable and unbiased conduit for bringing the AGW message to the masses–would be found invalid. Impossible to actually accept the criticisms and change I guess. They simply don’t get it.

    This review has already been presented and as such is nothing like the M&W paper. Not to mention it is a review, not a statistical paper which one can either reproduce or not. There is nothing to prove or disprove.

    Ian @464,

    As suspected, zero sense of humor. He was a COMEDIAN jackass, not an authority. And mindless? I guess that’s why he was so successful. But verrrry nice “retard” blast. I am sure you have endeared yourself to those here with friends or family members who actually suffer from mental disabilities.

    Do me a favor, keep posting to show us all your superior intelligence, errr, I mean complete lack of ability to comment without pathetic, mindless ad hom attacks and insults.

    You’ve certainly convinced me that I should listen to what you have to say. Perhaps you should become a comedian because your thoughts are indeed laughable.

  72. #72 Wow
    September 1, 2010

    “I would have to actually have respect for your opinion for that to be the case.”

    If you didn’t only believe your own propoganda, Bill, that would really *hurt*.

    “Given your absolute and unwavering arrogance”

    Hehehe. Projecting again.

    “Quite to the contrary, you seem to be the one with anger issues.”

    Nah, you just hate the world because it doesn’t owe you a living and that your comfortable lies are not believed by reality.

  73. #73 Wow
    September 1, 2010

    “He was a COMEDIAN jackass, not an authority.”

    a) why did you take him as an authority then?

    b) I refer the right horrible gentleman to his earlier statement:

    “Given your absolute and unwavering arrogance”

    and

    “Quite to the contrary, you seem to be the one with anger issues.”

    It’s really funny. You couldn’t make this sort of thing up, people wouldn’t believe that someone could be so dumb as to say that and IN THE SAME MESSAGE display those characteristics he pawned off on someone else.

  74. #74 Bill Walsh
    September 1, 2010

    One last question Ian. Why is the IAC report “biased and uninformed?” It would seem to be exactly the opposite. What is their bias? Why were they chosen to conduct a review? Perhaps you don’t like what they have to say? Do share your insight.

    I only ask because the folks over at RC, where I found the link, don’t seem to be under that impression. From thir post…

    “It appears mostly sensible and has a lot of useful things to say about improving IPCC processes…”

    Do you know something they don’t? I am sure you must given your level of intelligence.

  75. #75 Wow
    September 1, 2010

    “One last question Ian. Why is the IAC report “biased and uninformed?””

    It wasn’t terribly.

    What was uninformed is torygraph and other slimemerchant rags’ reporting of it.

    But you go ahead and infer incorrectly what other people say if it makes you feel better.

  76. #76 Ian Forrester
    September 1, 2010

    Bill Walsh said:

    One last question Ian. Why is the IAC report “biased and uninformed?

    You still have trouble with the English language. Did you miss out on your education entirely or only selected parts, the parts that would have made you a worthwhile addition to the human race? Where did I say that the IAC Report was biased or uninformed? If you ask an English teacher to read my posts they will tell you that you completely misinterpreted some simple English words. What I did say was that you spend too much time on biased and uninformed blogs. I bet you spend a lot of time on climatefraudit, wattsuphisarse and other such dishonest places. Please do not put words in my mouth. That is completely unacceptable behaviour among honest and civilized people.

    You are just an example of the fetid flotsam which floats around in the slimy world of AGW deniers and their supporters. You should be ashamed of what you are saying and doing. Do you want future generations to be saddled with untold costs and misery because people believed the lies you are spreading and do nothing about the effects of AGW?

    You are pathetic.

  77. #77 John Mshey
    September 1, 2010

    People should keep a close eye on MW, and there has been recent interesting discussion at DC’s thread on this.

  78. #79 Bill Walsh
    September 1, 2010

    Ian @471,

    Let’s see, from post 464…

    “Too bad you only read biased and uninformed sources. But we knew that already from previous nonsense you have posted.”

    Now, since I was discussing the IAC report, your comment is a direct statement that said report “biased and uninformed.” What was that you said about comprehension?

    The rest of your post is the typical tripe I have come to expect from you Ian. Here’s a quote you might wish to take some stock in…

    “Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.”–Jean Jaques Rousseau

    BTW, I take it you don’t possess the stones to admit that your use of the term “retard” was deplorable. But you probably think it was in good taste. Hope you never have a kid with Downs.

    Wow @468,

    I didn’t post Carlin’s piece as anything more than what it is at face value–the opinion of one well spoken, 5-time Grammy winning comedian. That you can’t see it as what I stated it was is not my issue. That you can’t laugh and that you take yourself so very seriously is also not my issue, it is yours.

    “Your absolute unwavering arrogance” is an observation, and an accurate one to describe you. It was not spawned from anger. You, on the other hand, seem to have endless time to post on these forums, and nearly every single post smacks of bitterness and hubris. I am not angry. I am amused. It’s ironic that it is folks like yourself are the supposed champions of this issue. Ironic and sad. If something is pathetic, it is that you and Ian are so insistent on being perceived as “right” that you can’t have a cogent discussion with anyone lest it is on your limited terms. Shame.

    And @470,

    Hello Strawman. Where did I mention the report other than the link at RC and the subsequent comment there as well? Oh, that’s right, I quoted the ACTUAL REPORT. Sorry, fail again. How it is spun by the media was not discussed, nor did I skew what was written in any way.

    Care to go another round?

  79. #80 Ian Forrester
    September 1, 2010

    Bill Walsh continues to put words in my mouth even though I showed how wrong he was. Keep up the good work Bill, you are only showing how ill-informed and under-educated you deniers are.

    As for my “usual tripe” nothing more than an honest appraisal of your character as anyone can see who has the strong stomach to read through your posts.

    A little hint to you Bill Walsh, when you are in a hole stop digging, your recent comments only confirm our earlier views of you.

  80. #81 MFS
    September 1, 2010

    Can you guys keep it (if loosely) on topic?

  81. #82 Bill Walsh
    September 1, 2010

    Ian @475,

    Pot, meet kettle. The words I quote are yours. No need for me to make any up or put any in your mouth. They speak all for themselves. Can’t own them? Seems not since you can’t still see the problem with your tactics and offensive language. In fact, you can’t own anything you say besides “denier, idiot, pathetic denier!” Not exactly stellar journalistic skills for someone who accused me of not having a grasp of the English language. Where was it again where you “showed how I was wrong?” I’ll wait while you go searching.

    See Ian, I won’t stoop to your level, and it really seems to bother you that I won’t. You can bait me all you like, but you will never get me down there. I’ll just watch you from the high road and chuckle. You lost the debate the minute you chose insults over substance. That would be about the first time you chose to address me. Too bad that fact eludes you.

    MFS @476,

    I would be happy to if not constantly harassed by the likes of Ian who seems to have no end to his obsession with name calling and off topic rhetoric. Do go back and see where, and with whom, that started.

  82. #83 Ian Forrester
    September 2, 2010

    MFS my apologies for stooping as low as the deniers who pollute this site.

    Unfortunately, I have a particular dislike for people who smear, libel and insult honest scientists.

    I will try and be a little bit more less offensive unless people like Bill Walsh continue in their odious denier habits of mocking and insulting scientists.

  83. #84 Bill Walsh
    September 2, 2010

    Ian @478,

    That is your single most laughable post yet. Find one, just one, instance of me posting anything derogatory towards scientists. Specifically, I would like to see specific instances of where I smear, mock, insult and most of all, libel scientists.

    PROVE IT. Do it, or retract your own libelous statement and crawl away with your tail between your legs. Anyone who goes back and takes the time to read, regardless of their opinions about what I do say, will clearly see I have done no such thing.

    You are a discredit to what this site is trying to be Ian. I sincerely doubt you would find much support here for many of the things you have said.

    You are a waste of my quite valuable time and I won’t bore anyone with this any longer. Especially myself.

  84. #85 Bill Walsh
    September 2, 2010

    Lotharsson,

    One last thought on our debate and perhaps better taken to a different thread. I bring this up only in light of the events of the day in Maryland. You discuss how things are spun in the media, and seem to add that your opinion is that I am not fair, that I somehow side with the right-wing machine. That *how* it is spun by the media–things like M&W and the recent IAC report–is what you combat and critique and that somehow I am against that action. I am not.

    With that said, the Drudges of the world have spun the guy at the Discovery Channel in MD totally as a green nut who was sent because he watched Gore’s movie. But the guy was crazy, and that is the real story, and he could have just as easily been a right wing loon. The Baltimore Sun, on the other hand, has it pretty much a Page 2 story since he was stopped with only his own life lost. And that is the local paper for the most part so if his *reason* was so important it might be mentioned. But Gore or his movie are not mentioned, which is proper because it makes no difference what his motive was. If he had attacked the EPA for instance, the stories in each outlet would be different. So you we agree that that type of reporting–over biased to the extreme–is bogus. But only if we agree it cuts both ways.

    To that point, I would say this. The media are much like the police. People hate them until they need them or they help, and then they are man’s best friend. So blaming the media one way or the other doesn’t really work. The truth is, each side is represented by different outlets.

    Anyway, in light of the last dozen or so posts, I will say I appreciate your relative lack of hostility. See you perhaps on another thread.

    Ian,

    Meanwhile, I’ll be waiting here for that proof from you detailing my hate and libel of scientists despite the fact that I work with them–scientists that is–every day and would be unemployed were it not for their work. Good luck Ian. Can’t wait to see what you find.

    I’ll check back tomorrow after I return from, ironically, a physics lab at CU Boulder. You will likely be sick to know that I consult at any number of labs in the western US. Equipment, not science in my case.

    Have fun with that search and let us know what you find.

  85. #86 Wow
    September 2, 2010

    Bill has no clue about his own posting history:

    “I say scrambling because there are well over 1000 posters–many the same–between here, Tamino, Eli, DC etc coming out of their proverbial shoes to prove this is garbage.”

    “With that said, I tend to observe that the discussion at Watts site contains far less vitriol and ad hom attacks”

    (with a side order of “don’t know what an ad hom is, a sure sign of a denialist in sheeps’ clothing)

    “BTW I read the “robust” critique at RC. Wouldn’t call that “working hard” at something.”

    “It’s more what I see as mild panic over a potential chink in the proverbial armor.”

    “To give an example, you I am sure watched the “plant food” video. … I think the video borders on propaganda.”

    This one all the while stating that he doesn’t know jack. So why the conclusions?

  86. #87 Lotharsson
    September 2, 2010

    > So the report is worthless and the IAC fails to get it?

    Goodness me! Way to *totally* miss my point! Try reading and comprehending **what I said**, rather than a caricature of it. (And if I recall correctly, this is not the first time. Pre-emptive apologies if I’m not recalling correctly…)

    > I figured there would be some reason why their conclusions–that, although the IPCC has “served society well” changes need to be made to better make it a reliable and unbiased conduit for bringing the AGW message to the masses–would be found invalid.

    Yet again – did I say that, or did you merely presume I did? Feel free to quote my words that support your contention – or retract it.

    I note you didn’t respond to my questions about your methods, other than to assert without any compelling logic that “this report is different”:

    > This review has already been presented and as such is nothing like the M&W paper. Not to mention it is a review, not a statistical paper which one can either reproduce or not.

    I’m not arguing that “presentation” (or “publication”) makes a disseminated work fair game for criticism, nor that those events might change the truth value of any claims made.

    > There is nothing to prove or disprove.

    Bill Walsh might disagree, as he seems to be [trying to use it to prove some position he is advocating](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and.php#comment-2764079) – in which case its accuracy is a relevant attribute.

    And you dodged my pointed question:

    > You have had time to thoroughly check that the claims made by the report are representative of reality, I take it, before you tout it as good and accurate?

    …which was not particularly about *this* report – rather Bill Walsh’s methods for **determining** which reports to tout as worthy, and when he feels it is legitimate to do so.

    > I bring this up only in light of the events of the day in Maryland.

    I don’t know the reference…

    > …seem to add that your opinion is that I … somehow side with the right-wing machine.

    Nuance doesn’t seem to be your thing. I stated over and over again that the criteria you advocate for allowing or disallowing criticism aid and abet the denialists (and are in and of themselves illogical). This is very different from saying that you “somehow side with the right-wing machine”.

    > So blaming the media one way or the other doesn’t really work. The truth is, each side is represented by different outlets.

    I don’t agree. Even the US “mainstream” media is very poor on reporting the science and its implications – and implying that there are “two [credible] sides” to the science is a false frame in the first place.

  87. #88 adelady
    September 2, 2010

    lotharsson

    The Maryland reference is to that poor deranged man who was killed today at the Discovery channel building. He took hostages and threatened to shoot and blow up some of them (and I’m grateful I wasn’t one of them). He had a whole lot of demands about stopping immigration, babies and global warming.

    So some of the less pleasant news organisations are touting this as “AGW alarmists are violent people”. Nasty but predictable.

  88. #89 Ian Forrester
    September 2, 2010

    Bill Walsh continues with his deceitful tactic of putting words in peoples’ mouths then arguing against what he thinks they said rather than what they actually said.

    It is not worth continuing any rational discussion with someone who uses these tactics.

    I think the majority of posters on this blog know exactly what kind of a person he is.

    I’m finished with his nonsense.

    This is the first of his anti-science statements which showed exactly what his position was, there are many others (post 296):

    close-minded and arrogant scientific method

  89. #90 jakerman
    September 2, 2010

    >*I think the majority of posters on this blog know exactly what kind of a person he is.*

    Yep!

  90. #91 Wow
    September 2, 2010

    “So some of the less pleasant news organisations are touting this as “AGW alarmists are violent people”.”

    So what about McVeigh? Or that kook who flew into the IRS building? How about that one who killed the police because “the government are coming for my guns!”? Not to mention the christian who killed that abortion doctor.

    But the christian connection is always disavowed with “he wasn’t a christian”.

  91. #92 Bill Walsh
    September 3, 2010

    All,

    Enjoy your zealot-like lives I guess. Lotharsson, I actually tried to agree with you, yet you still somehow spun it the other way.

    Ian, you failed on every occasion to do anything but prove nothing. Since you could not find anything more than one comment taken completely out of context to attempt prove your asinine assertion, you fail.

    Jakerman,

    Why are you even bothering? Frankly, you should be ashamed to back your young friend Ian. Yet you stand together as one.

    Wow, you’re apparently nothing more than someone with nothing better to do with your life than haunt this blog.

    Hate to tell you guys, if you feel like you’re fighting the good fight, you aren’t winning. Call me whatever pathetic insult you can come up with next, I do not care. I will continue to help shape science as you know it–renewable energy included and emphasis on–and you can continue wasting your time pretending you know more than the rest of the world. But however right you may be, you are failing. Miserably.

    You are fools.

    Good night now.

    Enjoy the anger and h

  92. #93 jakerman
    September 3, 2010

    >*Jakerman, Why are you even bothering? Frankly, you should be ashamed to back your young friend Ian. Yet you stand together as one.*

    Bill you are correct that Ian and I see your character in your response.

    For instance I gained a sense of your charater from the volumes you write as contrast against your [failure to face](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and.php#comment-2750392) and address the [weakness in your assertions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and.php#comment-2764062).

    Bill I’m not unfamiliar empty types breezing in with so called skepical agruments, and I’ve read my share of those who’s stock and trade is abuse. Unfortuntly you exhibit both traits, with little but empty argument and abuse to get you noticed.

  93. #94 Bill Walsh
    September 3, 2010

    Lest I be misunderstood, by “fools” I meant only Wow and Ian. Especially Ian. Not ad hom, just observed.

    Ian, whenever you want to back up that libel claim, I am all ears. But you won’t. Because you can’t. Anyone who reads this thread through, if they can tolerate it, knows it’s true.

    Lotharsson,

    I think we might have a language problem. Can’t tell where you might be from and it seems something is lost in translation.

    The rest reading, god help you, I have no opinion of you.

    Tim, if you by chance read this–god help you as well for getting this far–you need to check some of your posters. Words like “retard” are not an acceptable slur for any blog, much less one like yours.
    Just my opinion, of course. But remember, everyone has one. Just like Ian. (that was a cheap shot Ian. Get it? You should.)

    Best.

  94. #95 Lotharsson
    September 3, 2010

    > I actually tried to agree with you, yet you still somehow spun it the other way.

    I’m sure there are points where we are in agreement, but I suspect most of them aren’t newsworthy (or are stated once and then debate moves on). In this instance I’m not sure what you’re referring to as the “tried to agree” part – but I wasn’t focused on those bits, because the areas of disagreement were more significant.

    And on the points where I have consistently disagreed with you throughout this thread, you don’t seem to understand why and frequently mischaracterise the basis of my disagreement.

    > I think we might have a language problem. Can’t tell where you might be from and it seems something is lost in translation.

    I have lived in Australia, the US and the UK. They all have their differences, but I generally don’t have communication problems with people from any of the three.

  95. #96 jakerman
    September 3, 2010

    >*Lest I be misunderstood, by “fools” I meant…*

    Did you want to retract or clarify anything else Bill?

  96. #97 Wow
    September 3, 2010

    “Enjoy your zealot-like lives”

    A zealot is one so wedded to their ideals that they DO NOT HEAR any criticism of them.

    You are unable to even HEAR the criticisms laid against you, nor the ones laid against this paper.

    Just because we don’t agree 4+4=Mango and INSIST that it is equal to 8 and will not condone a plea of “Well, it COULD be Mango, show that it isn’t!” doesn’t make us zealots.

    But someone who proclaims “It COULD be Mango, because you don’t understand their workings” and doesn’t even acknowledge that Mango is not a number therefore doesn’t pertain to a maths solution is themselves the zealot.

    This paper merely proves that their bad method of analysis is a bad method of analysis and concludes that other methods of analysis are also bad.

    You don’t listen and just keep parroting “It COULD be true, though!”.

    It “COULD” be Mango too.

    But go ahead and enjoy your life where you are the only moderate and everyone else is an extreme zealot.

  97. #98 Chris O'Neill
    September 3, 2010

    Bill Walsh:

    you can continue wasting your time pretending you know more than the rest of the world

    This from someone who thinks he knows more about some aspects of climate science than 97% of climate scientists. What a hypocrite. Note, this is not being abusive. It is a statement of fact.

  98. #99 Bill Walsh
    September 6, 2010

    Ahh, back from a long weekend in the mountains to find that Ian, not surprisingly, failed to back his accusation that I made even one disparaging, much less libelous, remark about scientists. Wonder why?

    Jakers,

    No, why do you ask? I simply wanted to clarify that I don’t think all who post here, regardless of opinion, are fools. Only some. Perhaps you wanted to be included?

    Wow,

    I call you a zealot, because consistently in this thread, and in many, many others, you have proven yourself to be exactly what you state a zealot is–”one so wedded to their ideals that they DO NOT HEAR any criticism of them.” That describes you to a tee since you clearly think your opinions and posts are without fault. I, on the other hand, am not wedded to any one idea and am able to see that there are merits to both sides of the discussion. That the issue is NOT black and white which seems to be how you choose to look at it.

    Chris,

    Since yours is a “statement of FACT” kindly go back and find the posts I made where I state either directly or implicitly that I know “more about some aspects of climate science than 97% of climate scientists.”

    I will wait patiently for your response. I won’t have much choice since you will undoubtedly fail in your quest since I made no such statement. Nice of you to chime in with the standard accusation though.

    Lastly, Lotharsson,

    As I said, we seem to be off a bit. I don’t choose to mis-characterize your statements and I may well miss the basis of your argument in some cases. Again, there seems to be something lost in communication. Perhaps on another topic–since this one has clearly run its course for now–there will be another opportunity.

  99. #100 jakerman
    September 6, 2010

    >Did you want to retract or clarify anything else Bill?

    Bill:

    >*No.*

    Bill in that case [my response](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and.php#comment-2771363) still applies.